Tweet
Cities & Citizens; Natural vs Legal
h2ooflife
A.R. Nash
3/31/2013
Excerpt:
To understand the basis for viewing Barack Obama, Mario Rubio and Ted Cruz as being constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the United States, one must understand the purpose of the Constitution’s disqualification of all citizens who are not “natural born citizens”. That purpose was one of pre-emptive avoidance of conflict of allegiance due to having been born and raised by a foreign father, -all of whom owed allegiance to a foreign king. The fact of that purpose is found in the meaning of what a natural born citizen is and is not.
The definition is viewed by most in the legal community through a legal prism which distorts its simple and true meaning by the interference of thoughts and ideas related to law, common law, Supreme court majority opinions, British history and terminology, and “the Divine Right of Kings”.
None of those areas of related significance is directly connected to the meaning of what a natural born citizen is because none of them is directly connected to common sense, common language, and natural law. The difference between those two points of reference is as obvious as the difference between “a legal born citizen” and “a natural born citizen”. That difference becomes starkly manifest by the answer to a simple, stupid question that you should think about for half a second, -since it leads to a profound follow-up question, and it is: “Do governments have the authority to grant citizenship?”
The obvious answer is “yes”, but a thinking mind will then ask: “Do only governments provide citizenship? Is citizenship something that comes only from government and its laws? Or is there another means by which citizenship is acquired?”
If there is no other means, then all citizens are citizens via law, and the law or laws that grant citizenship can be identified and quoted. But if there is another means, that would mean that citizenship is also acquired by a means other than law. That would mean citizenship could exist which is outside of the legal system, beyond it, pre-dating it even and more fundamental than the legal system itself.
If it exists, that form of citizenship would have to have a label, a name, -and that name could be nothing other than natural citizenship. It would be the natural companion to legal citizenship.
Does natural citizenship exist? A similar question is: “Does natural childbirth exist?” Or does all birth come via Cesaerian section (which involves human intervention, -akin to legal intervention)?
If natural citizenship exists, then by definition, it is not legal citizenship because it would not involve the human (legal) interference of government but would instead exist regardless of legal mandate. It would be beyond the law. It would not exist within the legal sphere, but the legal sphere would exist aside from it, co-existent with it and definitely distinguishable from it.
Can we check the books, the codes, the court rulings that cover legal citizenship and find evidence of it? Yes and no. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor vs Happersett (1875) discusses natural citizenship status but there is no evidence of it in statutory nor constitutional law with the two exceptions of the required qualifications for being President found in Article II, Section I, and in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Other than those two, Law only deals with legal citizenship resulting from State law and Naturalization Acts of the federal government, along with court rulings. As a consequence, it’s like the wind; you cannot see it but you can feel its force because it is very real.
What would distinguish legal citizenship from natural citizenship; legal citizens from natural citizens? The answer is simple; it is the nature of how citizenship is acquired, -whether it is by legal means or natural means.
Who gets to define what natural citizenship is, and who gets to define what legal citizenship is?
The answer is “no one”. Rather, they are defined by the meaning of words. That means that there is a natural and historical divide between the two, and there is no gray area where they overlap. If one assumes that view, then all of the fog of confusion dissipates and the truth is seen in clean terms.
Our founding fathers had no fog of confusion regarding what they meant by the presidential qualifier “natural born citizen” because they understood the three things central to its meaning.
They are, or course, the meaning of the word “Citizen”, the word “natural”, and the legal concept of being a “born citizen”.
Their minds were not fogged by concepts of legal citizenship because they understood it completely and even included it as a form of citizenship that was sufficient to qualify one for the presidency, -but with the limitation that it had to have been acquired before the Constitution was adopted (1788). That meant that all citizens who were 35 years of age and had lived in the British colonies/ American states for 14 years could be President, including naturalized citizens and children domestically born to foreigners, -as long as they were born in a state that granted its citizenship to such children (sons of the soil) or were naturalized before June 21, 1788 when the ninth state ratified it, thereby making it officially adopted.
After the demise of all of those citizens who lived before that date, only natural born citizens would be eligible. That means that instead of 100% of free male American citizens being eligible, only 97-98% would be eligible. They were the sons of Americans.
The sons of foreigners from thenceforth would not be allowed to be President. That hair was split by the meaning of the word “natural”, as opposed to the meaning of “born citizen” because some born as Americans were only legal citizens and not natural citizens, (even though they were citizens from birth) because they were not born to Americans but to foreigners.
In an almost absurd hypothetical situation, if the wife of a foreigner was pregnant with twins, and one was born two days apart from the other, but during the day in between the father completed the naturalization process, then the first child would be born as the son of a foreigner while the second would be born as the son of an American.
The second child, born after naturalization, would be viewed as a natural American while the first would be viewed as a dual-citizen legal American because his American citizenship would be via the permission of the State government (provided the state in which he was born allowed citizenship for children of foreigners) and not via natural conveyance from a citizen father via traditional patrilineal descent (jus sanguinis -the Right of blood).
“The Right of Blood” was ancient and traditional, dating back to the prehistoric times, because it is membership by inherited nature. In a tribe, it is inherited ethnic nature. In a nation-state it is inherited political nature. In some nations they are both the norm, such as Japan. It is a totally natural nation since all of its members are of one ethnic and political nature. Where as a nation such as the now defunct, dismembered Czechoslovakia was an unnatural state because it was comprised of very divergent and disharmonious groups, ethnically, culturally, and religiously. In a strict sense it had no natural citizens because the nation itself was unnatural.
The ancient origin of the membership known as citizenship is seen in the nature of the recognized membership of the isolated entities known as cities. Cities existed separate and far apart from each other, -as mini-kingdoms consisting of local nobility, aristocrats and wealthy families, bureaucrats, scholars, educators, clergy, lawyers, merchants, landowners, artisans and craftsmen. They comprised the Citizens (or city-zens) of each city-kingdom.
...........................................
View the complete article at:
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/...ural-vs-legal/
h2ooflife
A.R. Nash
3/31/2013
Excerpt:
To understand the basis for viewing Barack Obama, Mario Rubio and Ted Cruz as being constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the United States, one must understand the purpose of the Constitution’s disqualification of all citizens who are not “natural born citizens”. That purpose was one of pre-emptive avoidance of conflict of allegiance due to having been born and raised by a foreign father, -all of whom owed allegiance to a foreign king. The fact of that purpose is found in the meaning of what a natural born citizen is and is not.
The definition is viewed by most in the legal community through a legal prism which distorts its simple and true meaning by the interference of thoughts and ideas related to law, common law, Supreme court majority opinions, British history and terminology, and “the Divine Right of Kings”.
None of those areas of related significance is directly connected to the meaning of what a natural born citizen is because none of them is directly connected to common sense, common language, and natural law. The difference between those two points of reference is as obvious as the difference between “a legal born citizen” and “a natural born citizen”. That difference becomes starkly manifest by the answer to a simple, stupid question that you should think about for half a second, -since it leads to a profound follow-up question, and it is: “Do governments have the authority to grant citizenship?”
The obvious answer is “yes”, but a thinking mind will then ask: “Do only governments provide citizenship? Is citizenship something that comes only from government and its laws? Or is there another means by which citizenship is acquired?”
If there is no other means, then all citizens are citizens via law, and the law or laws that grant citizenship can be identified and quoted. But if there is another means, that would mean that citizenship is also acquired by a means other than law. That would mean citizenship could exist which is outside of the legal system, beyond it, pre-dating it even and more fundamental than the legal system itself.
If it exists, that form of citizenship would have to have a label, a name, -and that name could be nothing other than natural citizenship. It would be the natural companion to legal citizenship.
Does natural citizenship exist? A similar question is: “Does natural childbirth exist?” Or does all birth come via Cesaerian section (which involves human intervention, -akin to legal intervention)?
If natural citizenship exists, then by definition, it is not legal citizenship because it would not involve the human (legal) interference of government but would instead exist regardless of legal mandate. It would be beyond the law. It would not exist within the legal sphere, but the legal sphere would exist aside from it, co-existent with it and definitely distinguishable from it.
Can we check the books, the codes, the court rulings that cover legal citizenship and find evidence of it? Yes and no. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor vs Happersett (1875) discusses natural citizenship status but there is no evidence of it in statutory nor constitutional law with the two exceptions of the required qualifications for being President found in Article II, Section I, and in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Other than those two, Law only deals with legal citizenship resulting from State law and Naturalization Acts of the federal government, along with court rulings. As a consequence, it’s like the wind; you cannot see it but you can feel its force because it is very real.
What would distinguish legal citizenship from natural citizenship; legal citizens from natural citizens? The answer is simple; it is the nature of how citizenship is acquired, -whether it is by legal means or natural means.
Who gets to define what natural citizenship is, and who gets to define what legal citizenship is?
The answer is “no one”. Rather, they are defined by the meaning of words. That means that there is a natural and historical divide between the two, and there is no gray area where they overlap. If one assumes that view, then all of the fog of confusion dissipates and the truth is seen in clean terms.
Our founding fathers had no fog of confusion regarding what they meant by the presidential qualifier “natural born citizen” because they understood the three things central to its meaning.
They are, or course, the meaning of the word “Citizen”, the word “natural”, and the legal concept of being a “born citizen”.
Their minds were not fogged by concepts of legal citizenship because they understood it completely and even included it as a form of citizenship that was sufficient to qualify one for the presidency, -but with the limitation that it had to have been acquired before the Constitution was adopted (1788). That meant that all citizens who were 35 years of age and had lived in the British colonies/ American states for 14 years could be President, including naturalized citizens and children domestically born to foreigners, -as long as they were born in a state that granted its citizenship to such children (sons of the soil) or were naturalized before June 21, 1788 when the ninth state ratified it, thereby making it officially adopted.
After the demise of all of those citizens who lived before that date, only natural born citizens would be eligible. That means that instead of 100% of free male American citizens being eligible, only 97-98% would be eligible. They were the sons of Americans.
The sons of foreigners from thenceforth would not be allowed to be President. That hair was split by the meaning of the word “natural”, as opposed to the meaning of “born citizen” because some born as Americans were only legal citizens and not natural citizens, (even though they were citizens from birth) because they were not born to Americans but to foreigners.
In an almost absurd hypothetical situation, if the wife of a foreigner was pregnant with twins, and one was born two days apart from the other, but during the day in between the father completed the naturalization process, then the first child would be born as the son of a foreigner while the second would be born as the son of an American.
The second child, born after naturalization, would be viewed as a natural American while the first would be viewed as a dual-citizen legal American because his American citizenship would be via the permission of the State government (provided the state in which he was born allowed citizenship for children of foreigners) and not via natural conveyance from a citizen father via traditional patrilineal descent (jus sanguinis -the Right of blood).
“The Right of Blood” was ancient and traditional, dating back to the prehistoric times, because it is membership by inherited nature. In a tribe, it is inherited ethnic nature. In a nation-state it is inherited political nature. In some nations they are both the norm, such as Japan. It is a totally natural nation since all of its members are of one ethnic and political nature. Where as a nation such as the now defunct, dismembered Czechoslovakia was an unnatural state because it was comprised of very divergent and disharmonious groups, ethnically, culturally, and religiously. In a strict sense it had no natural citizens because the nation itself was unnatural.
The ancient origin of the membership known as citizenship is seen in the nature of the recognized membership of the isolated entities known as cities. Cities existed separate and far apart from each other, -as mini-kingdoms consisting of local nobility, aristocrats and wealthy families, bureaucrats, scholars, educators, clergy, lawyers, merchants, landowners, artisans and craftsmen. They comprised the Citizens (or city-zens) of each city-kingdom.
...........................................
View the complete article at:
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/...ural-vs-legal/